Today’s Headlines

  • Enjoy Voting, Elections, and Democratic Freedoms While You Still Can (NYT, Gothamist)
  • Dems Could Increase Their Majority in State Senate But Still Not Win Control (News, Politico)
  • Truck Driver Kills Woman Crossing 42nd Street, No Charges Expected (News, Post)
  • The MTA Is Adding L Train Runs to Relieve Crowding, Especially on Sundays (News, Post)
  • Will We All Be Dead Before the MTA Can Run Trains More Frequently Throughout the System? (Crain’s)
  • Manhattan CB 4 to DOT: West 43rd Street Is a Raceway, Do Something (DNA)
  • More on the Launch of M23 Select Bus Service (AMNY, Gothamist, NY1)
  • Manslaughter Indictment for Drunk, High Driver Who Crashed on SIE, Killing Passenger (Advance)
  • How the Generic Street Fair Lobby Got de Blasio to Abandon Street Fair Reform (NYT)
  • When You Get Around NYC With Kids, You See the Streets From a New Perspective (RPA)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Vooch

    can we please pedestrisnize 42nd from Lexington to Times Square ?

  • WalkingNPR

    “For Mayor Bill de Blasio, the furor was unexpected and unwelcome, in large part because the proposed changes, he said, were the work of others in the administration and were already going forward when he heard about them. Last Monday, the administration just as quietly backed away”

    de Blasio implementing something poorly and then backing away when it gets tough? Color me shocked!

  • ItsEasyBeingGreen

    Seriously, The Post has been trying to character assassinate De Blasio since before he was Mayor and never have I read a piece where he comes off as more of a spineless oaf than this Times article.

  • HamTech87

    Can someone explain the difference between the IDC and the regular Democratic caucus?

  • JamesR

    Anyone else notice a lot more flagrant red light running by motorists as of late? Not the “Just turned from yellow to red” type of transgression, but literally lights that have been unambiguously red for multiple seconds. I don’t know if it’s impatience resulting from increased city traffic congestion, or just anecdotal confirmation bias, but I swear it’s happening more.

  • Joe R.

    Yep, it’s something I’ve been seeing for a while now. It’s not coincidence it’s happening more as we install more traffic signals. The more any traffic control is used, the less effective it is.

  • BubbaJoe123

    IDC are a group of Democrats who are essentially their own bloc, and primarily vote with the Republicans.

  • I see this a lot when I am riding. But, unlike some people, I won’t ascribe it to something that happens as we install more traffic signals.

    The most obvious flaw in that analysis is that the number of traffic signals is not noticiably increasing; there are red lights today basically where there have always been red lights. Drivers have had plenty of time to get used to them.

    The more serious problem is that the argument about too many traffic signals is a backdoor way of excusing lawlessness. Drivers have the responsibility to stop at red lights. (As do we bicyclists, of course.) If there is a particular red light that the community things is superfluous, then there exists a process by which the community can ask that that light be removed. But, while any given signal is there, the responsibilty to obey that signal must be firmly acknowledged and not undermined with weasly excuses.

    In fact, the entire problem of driver misbehaviour is one of enforcement priorities. What drivers have gotten used to is not the existence of traffic signals but the casual treatment of these signals. If sufficient sustained attention were turned to the problem of traffic violations (not only the blowing of red lights, but also the blowing of stop signs, the act of stopping ahead of the stop line, the failure to signal at turns, etc.), then these destructive practices could be eradicated.

    You’d never catch every single illegal act; but you wouldn’t need to. Through increased enforcement it would be possible to create a credible threat of getting caught, thereby providing the counterincentive that currently does not exist towards trying one of these illegal manoeuvres.

    If such a programme were enacted, drivers would certainly complain; and the idiot media would run editorials denouncing what they would call police excess and heavy-handed enforcement (something which these “news” outlets conspicuously do not do in the current environment when the cops are engaged in breaking black people’s heads).

    We need leadership that would respond to this sort of media reaction by saying “tough shit”, and by unequivocally telling drivers: “you are the problem”. We need leadership that is brave enough to announce that drivers have become too accustomed to breaking the law, and that law enforcement is prepared to make stopping these illegal acts its top priority.

    Of course, this would also require that the police be on board. The overstaffed police department certainly has the manpower to effectuate a permanent policy shift towards prioritising traffic enforcement.

    But the department is not only overstaffed but also over-weaponised. In a civilised society, the civilian administration sets policy, and the police act in accordance with this policy. However, in New York City, the police department is, in practice, indistinguishable from a miltary junta; it is a body which considers itself above the law and above civic contro, and which has arrogated to itself the policy-making function. It functions in many neighbourhoods as an occupying army that terrorises the local population; and its members love nothing more than to play soldier dress-up in response to (mainly imaginary) “terrorist threats”.

    So the lack of accountablity of the police force, and the lack of desire on the part of civilian authorities to rein in this grossly out-of-control agency, is intimately connected to the ongoing problem of driver lawlessness.

    It is driver behaviour — not street crime; certainly not “terrorism” — that constitutes the greatest threat to New Yorkers’ safety. Until we have leadership that is willing to acknowledge this and act upon it, drivers will continue to kill with impunity.

  • Simon Phearson

    A lot more? Maybe not. But certainly I’ve seen it more than I used to. Seems SI driving habits are bleeding into the “mainland.”

  • kevd

    in a word.

  • JudenChino

    I can’t say if it happens more or less but I know it happens a lot and there’s very little enforcement even when NYPD are around.

    The place I observe this law breaking most often is at the base of the BK Bridge (BK Side) when cars turn left onto Tillary from the Bridge. It’ll be, ok, that’s 2, no, that’s 3 cars turning after the solid red.

  • JudenChino

    But, unlike some people, I won’t ascribe it to something that happens as we install more traffic signals.

    Ferdinand with the shade.

    Question: Which bridge do you take to Fidi from Woodhaven? Just wondering?

  • Kevin Love

    Red light cameras. Then this driver behavior comes to a sudden stop.

  • SSkate

    And in so doing obtained power that they weren’t going to get by sticking with the Dems and relying on seniority etc.

  • I take the Williamsburg Bridge.

    I tend to see the red-light running on Johnson Avenue in Brooklyn and on Woodward and Onderdonk Avenues in Queens.

    And, I should add that it’s an epidemic on Delancey Street at Clinton Street, right at the Manhattan landing of the Williamsburg Bridge.

  • AMH